5. Critique of the course in relation to the student experience
The unit being examined uses a blended learning approach which from observation appears to favour a more traditional approach were the theory is delivered by face to face contact. Moodle, the VLE, is used to support the theory content with lecture PowerPoint slides and links for further reading to related subject areas.
Comments from student feedback in relation to this approach appear on the whole to be positive however there is evidence to suggest that some students felt this approach to be quite intense. The style of learning, depth and pace of learning appears here to be dictated by the lecturer. This is evident from comments including, “very intense and they feel that it’s useful to have some background material”.
Further comments that reinforce this include,
“Students agreed that having Science all day Monday very difficult and dislike the fact that they have to come into college for 1 ½ hours on a Friday for communication as most of the time you are sitting reading through something which could have easily be done at home”
Perhaps a pragmatic solution to some of these problems would be to include more online blended learning that affords the student opportunity to learn at their own pace and style of learning. Biggs’ (2003) model of constructive alignment is based on the premise that students learn by constructing their own understanding, which to an extent will depend upon their own experiences, of which could be quite diverse in a classroom of school leavers and adults. Hence to engage students in their learning Biggs (2003) stipulates designing a unit where the students are involved in learning activities.
There does appear to be evidence of group work, collaboration and activities in the Laboratory that centre around the theory work. However to give students ownership of their learning perhaps a more flexible self-directed approach which included classroom work, laboratory sessions and some work online including tutorial activities, discussion forums, formative assessments and simulations, might enable these students to adopt not only their own learning style but could also encourage new learning styles.
Referring to Biggs’ (2003) constructive alignment, the modules’ learning outcomes should be clearly reflected in the modules’ learning activities and assessment strategy. Learning outcomes are evident in the lesson plans for this module but it is not clear if they are evident for the students to see as the PowerPoint slides visible to the students do not appear to outline any learning outcomes. Students need a clear outline of what they are expected to learn, expectations and level of commitment required and the timescale to afford them opportunity to become independent lifelong learners (MacDonald 2008).
Perhaps an individual learning contract developed by each student would encourage self-reflection and afford them the opportunity to identify their own individual learning needs, allowing them to plan how and when they will achieve the learning outcomes. This would provide a pragmatic solution to enabling the students to achieve the module learning outcomes whilst embedding a more self-directed, student centred approach within a blended learning strategy.
To employ such strategy will require a degree of IT skills which this programme appears to have successfully embedded within the curriculum for full time students.
5. Critique of the course in relation to the student experience
Comments from student feedback in relation to this approach appear on the whole to be positive however there is evidence to suggest that some students felt this approach to be quite intense. The style of learning, depth and pace of learning appears here to be dictated by the lecturer. This is evident from comments including, “very intense and they feel that it’s useful to have some background material”.
Further comments that reinforce this include,
“Students agreed that having Science all day Monday very difficult and dislike the fact that they have to come into college for 1 ½ hours on a Friday for communication as most of the time you are sitting reading through something which could have easily be done at home”
There does appear to be evidence of group work, collaboration and activities in the Laboratory that centre around the theory work. However to give students ownership of their learning perhaps a more flexible self-directed approach which included classroom work, laboratory sessions and some work online including tutorial activities, discussion forums, formative assessments and simulations, might enable these students to adopt not only their own learning style but could also encourage new learning styles.
Referring to Biggs’ (2003) constructive alignment, the modules’ learning outcomes should be clearly reflected in the modules’ learning activities and assessment strategy. Learning outcomes are evident in the lesson plans for this module but it is not clear if they are evident for the students to see as the PowerPoint slides visible to the students do not appear to outline any learning outcomes. Students need a clear outline of what they are expected to learn, expectations and level of commitment required and the timescale to afford them opportunity to become independent lifelong learners (MacDonald 2008).
To employ such strategy will require a degree of IT skills which this programme appears to have successfully embedded within the curriculum for full time students.